The Battle Of Alesia - The Effect The Battle Of Alesia had on the Gaul

Anyone have any info on the battle?

Maybe even the consequences?

edit: thanks, I learnt a lot from this discussion and found plenty of sources!

Thanks everyone,

Viking

Try reading Inker's account of the battle. There is a chapter at the end on the aftermath of the defeat.

'Caesar's Gallic Triumph: Alesia 52BC' by Peter Inker.

If you're in the UK; Alesia at Amazon.co.uk

If you're in the US; Alesia at Amazon.com

If you don't want to buy it you should be able to get it from a library.

Try reading Inker's account of the battle. There is a chapter at the end on the aftermath of the defeat.

 

'Caesar's Gallic Triumph: Alesia 52BC' by Peter Inker.

 

If you're in the UK; Alesia at Amazon.co.uk

 

If you're in the US; Alesia at Amazon.com

 

If you don't want to buy it you should be able to get it from a library.

Thanks, I checked up on it, it doesn't have very good reviews, so I'll try to get it from my local library. That end chapter might be worth it alone!

If anyone could provide me with more information about how the battle resulted in the downfall of the Gauls I would be very grateful! Some reputable internet sources would be great too, not to mention books! I've been using Caesar's Commentaries as a primary source, and they're pretty helpful (a bit biased maybe... but great!)

Your nickname reminds me of a hushed side comment made by Professor Harl in his audio course about the Vikings (from "teaching company"). He suggested Ceasars epic overkill in Gaul likely caused a domino effect by depopulating Germany of tribes who had been drawn into helping out the Gauls. This vacuum was filled by southern Danish proto-vikings moving south to become present day Germans. He joked about this being a secret because no one dares to say Germany was essentially founded by an Italian, so I guess you won't find any citations.

I also heard this was why Augustus had so much trouble fighting the Germans... they had a north-woods almost guerilla tradition that didn't involved centralized towns and forts that the Romans could focus on and besiege. Oh, somewhere else I heard Julius practiced such brutal overkill in order to impress his own side and that it wasn't militarily necessary. Or maybe it was in the euphoria after continually winning when outnumbered 2 to 1? Well, this isn't much help, just some half remembered background...

It's not necessarily Alesia alone that ended Gallic resistance to Caesar. The defeat of Gaul was a series of battles and events. However, Alesia constituted a horrific defeat in morale for the Gallic armies... They had the Romans on the proverbial ropes, threw everything they had at them and were ultimately crushed. What hope was their for victory if the Romans couldn't be defeated under the circumstances presented at Alesia?

The result of the war is well known. Whether the numbers of dead and enslaved are Caesar's embellishment or a truthful representation of Gaul's population, it's clear that the fighting age male population was severely diminished. There was little practical hope for a continuation of open and unified resistance. Even as the next generation of fighting age males matured, they found themselves recruited heavily for the civil wars, as both legionaries and auxilia (the latter likely in heavy numbers). Other than rather isolated revolts (Batavia in AD 69 comes to mind) that didn't really involve core Gallic tribes (Germanics in the case of Batavia), the Gauls also became conditioned to Roman rule and found that it wasn't necessarily such a bad thing after all. That presents a rather simple concept of "Romanization" but it was the defeat at Alesia, after the attrition of 7 to 8 years of war, that broke the collective Gallic will to fight.

Wow, thank you so much for all the information, I will take a look at it over the next few days in greater detail, and post some more thoughts!

You can always begin HERE; please note there are many additional links to related topics (Vercingetorix, Gallic War, Gergovia and so on).

yea, I've already read all of those pages a few times, I loved them!

Your nickname reminds me of a hushed side comment made by Professor Harl in his audio course about the Vikings (from "teaching company"). He suggested Ceasars epic overkill in Gaul likely caused a domino effect by depopulating Germany of tribes who had been drawn into helping out the Gauls. This vacuum was filled by southern Danish proto-vikings moving south to become present day Germans. He joked about this being a secret because no one dares to say Germany was essentially founded by an Italian, so I guess you won't find any citations.

 

I also heard this was why Augustus had so much trouble fighting the Germans... they had a north-woods almost guerilla tradition that didn't involved centralized towns and forts that the Romans could focus on and besiege. Oh, somewhere else I heard Julius practiced such brutal overkill in order to impress his own side and that it wasn't militarily necessary. Or maybe it was in the euphoria after continually winning when outnumbered 2 to 1? Well, this isn't much help, just some half remembered background...

Woah, that's an interesting theory!

It's not necessarily Alesia alone that ended Gallic resistance to Caesar. The defeat of Gaul was a series of battles and events. However, Alesia constituted a horrific defeat in morale for the Gallic armies... They had the Romans on the proverbial ropes, threw everything they had at them and were ultimately crushed. What hope was their for victory if the Romans couldn't be defeated under the circumstances presented at Alesia?

 

The result of the war is well known. Whether the numbers of dead and enslaved are Caesar's embellishment or a truthful representation of Gaul's population, it's clear that the fighting age male population was severely diminished. There was little practical hope for a continuation of open and unified resistance. Even as the next generation of fighting age males matured, they found themselves recruited heavily for the civil wars, as both legionaries and auxilia (the latter likely in heavy numbers). Other than rather isolated revolts (Batavia in AD 69 comes to mind) that didn't really involve core Gallic tribes (Germanics in the case of Batavia), the Gauls also became conditioned to Roman rule and found that it wasn't necessarily such a bad thing after all. That presents a rather simple concept of "Romanization" but it was the defeat at Alesia, after the attrition of 7 to 8 years of war, that broke the collective Gallic will to fight.

Ok, I was under the impression that after Alesia, all Caesar had to do was fight small skirmishes against small fragments of resistance in the surrounding regions. Yea, the blow to morale is one of the things I'm looking at. Thanks for confirming a lot of my questions! I'll take a look at what happened in Batavia too, I don't really know about it!

Thanks again!

Just for the record; I don't think Caesar's Gallic Wars were particularly different from most other Roman conquests regarding the topics discussed on both threads.

Just for the record; I don't think Caesar's Gallic Wars were particularly different from most other Roman conquests regarding the topics discussed on both threads.

I thought Caesar was famous for gratuitous overkill even by Roman standards, and that was the claimed point of contention with the senate. I am thinking of things like pre-Alesia massacres of civilians after a battle was settled. There was a famous case where he spared killing a bride about to be wed... blah blah blah, unfortunately I don't have sources, but they suggested there was no military or political justification other than some point scoring.

If this is wrong, I would be happy to be able to admire Caesar again as one of the greatest military minds rather than a brute. The Alesia battle sounds so brilliant; who else could fend off a titanic army on the outside while having to be stretched thin around a siege ring facing inwards?

If this is wrong, I would be happy to be able to admire Caesar again as one of the greatest military minds rather than a brute. The Alesia battle sounds so brilliant; who else could fend off a titanic army on the outside while having to be stretched thin around a siege ring facing inwards?

Couldn't he have been both? Caesar was a sound general, having some ability in both strategic and tactical details, while lacking strength in others. For instance, he was more than capable of forward strategic planning (such as the invasions of Britannia, regardless of the outcome) and showed brilliance in siege warfare. Conversely, he was reactionary and brash, failed miserably in most logistical affairs and was often quite close to defeat before ultimately scratching and clawing a way to victory.

As such, it's just as easy to say that he was both a great military mind and a brute (and a tyrant for good measure).

While reading through the Gallic War, I am also under the impression that there were more circumstances behind the scenes that helped attribute to Caesar's precarious situations during the war, and his eventual victory. This is all conjecture on my part, so.....

We have Ariovistus, who during a parley with Caesar, mentions the fact the Caesar is having difficulties back home in Rome, and that Ariovistus is "not so much of a barbarian as to be ignorant to the fact of Caesar's problems.." Ariovistus, as Caesar mentions, was declared a friend to the People and Senate of Rome. Question is, how would Ariovistus have known what was happening in the Senate house in Rome proper? Did Caesar's enemies in the Senate approach Ariovistus, maybe secretly approving his motives of driving the Gauls out of their lands, while promising that Rome itself will not supply any more troops to Caesar during his campaign? We know that Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer was an officer under Pompey for a time, and that he was Consul until his death in 59BCE. He also was proconsul of Cisalpine Gaul, and had contact with the Suebi, according to Pliny the Elder. Did Caesar have enough enemies in the Senate as early as 58BCE, to have some persons of influence connected to the Senate try to cause a disruption in Caesar's plans by approaching Ariovistus? Not to try and stop the taking of Gaul, but to stop Caesar from being the person who orchestrated it?

Vercingetorix always perplexed me. His father, Celtillus, was supposedly put to death by his tribesmen for wanting to rule all of Gaul. It is clear then, that Vercingetorix was a noble of sorts. What is not clear though, is how Vercingetorix managed to raise the hopes of the Gauls for a successful revolt so fast. Under the assumption that Vercingetorix did not start planning a revolt at the beginning of the Gallic campaigns(58BCE), and with Caesar having friends and spies within the various trbies throught Gaul, in a relative time period of a year or two (GW began 58BCE, ending 51BCE), Vercingetorix managed to get himself elected leader of the revolt, plan strategies and logistics, and to have 100K's of troops at his disposal until the siege at Alesia. What I am trying to conject here, is that it seems probable that Vercingetorix had some outside assistance, as in non-Gallic. The gold needed to fund such an undertaking would have been enormous. During the campaigns, it would have seemed almost impossible for him to have raised such an amount of gold. Possible another Roman hand in the stirring pot of Vercingetorix, with the promise of gold and a kingship, in return for defeating Caesar?

I thought Caesar was famous for gratuitous overkill even by Roman standards, and that was the claimed point of contention with the senate. I am thinking of things like pre-Alesia massacres of civilians after a battle was settled. There was a famous case where he spared killing a bride about to be wed... blah blah blah, unfortunately I don't have sources, but they suggested there was no military or political justification other than some point scoring.

 

If this is wrong, I would be happy to be able to admire Caesar again as one of the greatest military minds rather than a brute. The Alesia battle sounds so brilliant; who else could fend off a titanic army on the outside while having to be stretched thin around a siege ring facing inwards?

Caesar to Caesar - don't listen to them, they would say anything to blacken this man, just remember who eventually conquered Gaul.....(and Rome), invaded Britain, smashed poor Pompey Magnus and his ants, was loved by the people and hated by aristocratic worms - Us !

Another 15 minutes with "them" and you will come up with Caesar as a little man who lost all his wars, killed everyone, was 1.42 meters with moustache on his nose and blue spots on his bold head .

Alesia Shmalesia...

We have Ariovistus, who during a parley with Caesar, mentions the fact the Caesar is having difficulties back home in Rome, and that Ariovistus is "not so much of a barbarian as to be ignorant to the fact of Caesar's problems.."

I thought Caesar was famous for gratuitous overkill even by Roman standards, and that was the claimed point of contention with the senate

Well, there is no denying Caesar's gratuitous overkill but look at the source of the "claimed point of contention". The Senate, Marcus Porcius Cato and the rest. Should we not ingest the proverbial grain of salt? I'd like to know what made other Roman warlords such sweethearts. Caesar was not alone in practicing "gratuitous overkill".

Salve, Amici

I thought Caesar was famous for gratuitous overkill even by Roman standards, and that was the claimed point of contention with the senate

Well, there is no denying Caesar's gratuitous overkill but look at the source of the "claimed point of contention". The Senate, Marcus Porcius Cato and the rest. Should we not ingest the proverbial grain of salt? I'd like to know what made other Roman warlords such sweethearts. Caesar was not alone in practicing "gratuitous overkill".

When was the last time ypu checked on Cn Pompeius Magnus cursus honorum?

It mirrored CJ Caesar's (extraordinary proconsulates, CJ in Gaul and Cn in Hispania) with the significant additional advantage that Pompeius was at Rome and that he had enjoyed extraordinary magistratures with irrestricted Imperium (Dictator-like).

 

The Civil War that began in 49 BC was not between "Populares" and "Repuiblicans"; Pompeius and his legates were no more republican than Caesar. It was just a final fight between fellow usurpers for their share of the booty. Just months before, they were all partners and cronies from the same "triumvirial" faction.

 

Had not CJ Caesar crossed the Rubicon and won, Pompeiud and co. would have had irrestrict power over the entire Roman republic in any dictatorship-like way; no question about that; and of course, CJ Caesar's life wouldn't be worth a denarius.

Don't start another war here.... The aristocratic worms are preparing an assault !

Crossing the Rubicon.. aechhach... was the greatest crime.... acheaeach... in the history of Rome...(vomiting). Peace and love, peace and love

Ave Asclepiades

Pompey had one saving grace IMO. He did not have prominent enemy captives ritually strangled at the end of a triumph. Other than that I completely agree with what you stated.